Posted on 05/25/2014 10:52:33 AM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
. . . . For centuries, the English have been taught that the late medieval Church was superstitious, corrupt, exploitative, and alien. Above all, we were told that King Henry VIII and the people of England despised its popish flummery and primitive rites. England was fed up to the back teeth with the ignorant mumbo-jumbo magicians of the foreign Church, and up and down the country Tudor people preferred plain-speaking, rational men like Wycliffe, Luther, and Calvin. Henry VIII achieved what all sane English and Welsh people had long desired – an excuse to break away from an anachronistic subjugation to the ridiculous medieval strictures of the Church.
, . . But the last 30 years have seen a revolution in Reformation research. Leading scholars have started looking behind the pronouncements of the religious revolution’s leaders – Henry VIII, Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cranmer, Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley – and beyond the parliamentary pronouncements and the great sermons. Instead, they have begun focusing on the records left by ordinary English people. This “bottom up” approach to history has undoubtedly been the most exciting development in historical research in the last 50 years. It has taken us away from what the rulers want us to know, and steered us closer towards what actually happened.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
One religion? One religion is true. The others are not true.
It never does.
I wonder how different things might have been if Henry VIII had done things differently.
“He set up his own religion as the State religion. It wsa used to redistribute wealth to supporters of the State, murder opponents and blaspheme Christ.”
He did those things, he was a tyrant as monarchs tend to be.
But the template he used was provided to him by Rome at the time. At attempt to centralize and consolidate administrative, political, and religious influence.
One or more. Sad thing is Henry was a man of great ability. He just made the mistake so many do and equate ability with total superiority, and felt that there was no checks on his appetite.
Listen Vlad-baby,
I won’t engage in one of your patented evade-the-question games.
Who sacked Rome? Who was holding the pope captive? You know the answer to these questions, don’t you?
“False. There was no such thing as divorce within Catholicism. Thus, no divorce could be granted by the pope. You probably mean an annulment. And that couldn’t be granted precisely because a dispensation had been granted originally. No annulment was possible. Also, it was not “customary” for annulments to be granted. Few were granted.”
This is, of course semantic and bureaucratic nonsense - which is your specialty. It was not then (and even today is not) unusual for annulments to be granted, especially to the well-heeled in North America.
” The Protestant meme that Protestantism is the mother of all good in the West is rubbish.”
I guess you hear what you want to hear. It was the decline of the central political state in Rome that was the mother of all good in the West. Nation States motivated by competition with rivals was an engine of innovation that is not really arguable.
“Protestants WERE the political intriguers. They were the conspirators against the history, culture and people of England. They destroyed the culture, monasteries, libraries, closed and sacked colleges, and so on.”
Of course they were. Tyrants are tyrants. Do you think that by showing Protestants were bad that it makes Catholics look good? Catholics in Rome at the time were vile conspirators - Henry was right to reject them for the good of England. That didn’t mean Henry wasn’t a despicable tyrant. All kings were, generally speaking. Including the bureaucrats of Rome.
If you wish to argue that Rome did not blow it - did not lose it’s empire, and did not lose control of Christianity, then go ahead. Rome was a victim of it’s own corruption at that time. They blew it. That much should be obvious.
Did they found out that Catherine could bear the children but lack of hygiene in Tudor England with risk of infection there is history evidence that perhaps Henry VIII was carrier of Syphllis
Yes I have hear of Catherine had “nine pregnancies through 22 year of marriage
I don't think the Greek greats, Plato and Aristotle, would have agreed with that proposition. Both of them, in importantly different ways, "need" a god -- ONE God -- to make their systems "work."
What is REALLY strongly different between their epistemology and ours is the idea of revelation.
“Who sacked Rome? Who was holding the pope captive? You know the answer to these questions, don’t you?”
Yep. I do.
And it’s all irrelevant - as research has shown. After all Henry VIII was asking the pope for an annulment in 1530: http://www.missedinhistory.com/blog/vatican-releases-henry-viii-annulment-letter-to-pope/ As everyone who actually has studied history knows, Charles V had removed his troops and mercenaries from Rome in 1528. The pope had been Charles’ prisoner only for six months.
“This is, of course semantic and bureaucratic nonsense - which is your specialty.”
Getting history right is my specialty. That’s why I knew the Charles had already freed the pope two years before Henry sent a letter to the pope requesting an annulment. You apparently were not aware of that.
“It was not then (and even today is not) unusual for annulments to be granted, especially to the well-heeled in North America.”
Actually it used to be EXTREMELY UNCOMMON for annulments to be granted. In 1968, for instance, only 338 marriages were annulled in the United States. I have no idea how many Catholics there were in America in 1968, but I would assume that there were at least half as many as now so that would mean about 33,000,000. That means there were about 1 annulment for every 97,000 Catholics. You seem to have no idea of what you’re talking about. Also, I should point out - since you probably have no idea of what you’re talking about - that the U.S. has the highest rate of annulments for two reasons:
1) the Protestantization of marriage in U.S. culture
2) because many American Catholics who divorce and want to remarry prefer to marry in the Church. European Catholics simply don’t care because they have not been faithful for decades. They marry in their village parishes because their family has done so for 600 years. They often divorce and remarry their second spouse by civil law only. Few Europeans bother with the annulment process.
“I guess you hear what you want to hear.”
Which, if true, would still mean I hear more than you apparently.
“It was the decline of the central political state in Rome that was the mother of all good in the West.”
The last “central political state in Rome” was the Roman Empire which was most assuredly dead in the fifth and sixth centuries. If you’re saying modern things are a product of that death/birth than that was one hell of a long delivery.
“Nation States motivated by competition with rivals was an engine of innovation that is not really arguable.”
Yes, WWI and WWII were so innovative. Gee, were so fortunate to have had century after century of “innovation” leading to the deaths of tens of millions of people, the wiping out of peoples, languages, cultures, art. So fortunate.
“Do you think that by showing Protestants were bad that it makes Catholics look good?”
I think that showing that Protestantism is a product of bad people shows what Protestantism is. Christianity is from God. Protestantism was invented on the cloaca and its supporters often acted accordingly.
“Catholics in Rome at the time were vile conspirators - Henry was right to reject them for the good of England.”
Conspirators with whom exactly? And what makes you think Henry really gave a hoot about what was good for England? Does putting to death - without trial - monks who harmed no one somehow contribute to the good of England? How does destroying over 2,000 chapels, chantries, colleges, monasteries and convents which fed the hungry, taught children to read, were worshipped in by generations of faithful and loved as centers of the faith contribute to the good of England? How did killing Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher (who was revered as a great scholar and the very embodiment of a reforming and devout bishop contribute to the good of England?
“That didn’t mean Henry wasn’t a despicable tyrant.”
You got that right.
“All kings were, generally speaking.”
Generally speaking? Some were. Some weren’t. King Casimir wasn’t. Henry VIII was.
“Including the bureaucrats of Rome.”
Some may have been. Clearly the vast majority were not.
“If you wish to argue that Rome did not blow it - did not lose it’s empire, and did not lose control of Christianity, then go ahead.”
The Roman Empire blew it and lost it’s empire. The Catholic Church never had an empire.
“Rome was a victim of it’s own corruption at that time.”
Everyone is a victim of their own corruption. The problem with your statement is that it is just a Protestant meme and doesn’t deal with historical realities.
“They blew it. That much should be obvious.”
You blew it. That much is obvious.
Excuse me?
Hid the truth?
I doubt it very much.
This is a portion of a summary I wrote about 8 years ago for a Seminary class I audited on Church History. It was written for the section on England’s Reformation. The class studied Church History from before Christ’s birth up to about 1990. The last part of the 1900’s were a lost less in depth.
>>>>>>>>CHURCH HISTORY<<<<<<<<
>>>>>King Henry Leaves The Church<<<<<
To”To Jesus Christ I commend my soul; Lord Jesus receive my soul.”
With her last words still lingering in the air a skilled swordsman, brought over from France, beheaded the reason for England’s reformation. King Henry wanted an annulment from his wife, who had not given him a male heir, so he could marry Anne Boleyn.
In time she too would fail to give the King a son. Interestingly, shortly before her execution on charges of adultery, the Queen’s marriage to the King was dissolved and declared invalid. One would wonder then how she could have committed adultery if she had in fact never been married to the King.
Henry the VIII’s desire for a male heir to his throne led England on a path that would eventually lead to what English churchman would call a “Via Media”. Henry wanted freedom from the Popes authority but he still insisted his kingdom follow the Catholic doctrine, with only two changes. He wanted an English Bible used in all churches, and the suppression of the unpopular monasteries.
The King eventually put forth regulations that only the wealthy and aristocrats could read the Bible, and confiscated the property of many small monasteries adding their money to his royal treasury. Upon the death of Henry’s son Edward VI, Mary Tudor, known in history as “Bloody Mary”, would attempt to restore Roman Catholicism in England. After almost three hundred executions, including that of Archbishop Thomas Crammer, Queen Mary had reversed most of what Henry and Edward had done. Mary died after only reigning five years and the daughter of the beheaded Anne Boleyn would assume the throne.
Queen Elizabeth, whom Mary’s cousin Charles V warned her to execute, not only reversed all of Mary’s policies against the Protestants, but she went farther in her reforms then Henry did. Elizabeth had a policy of theological inclusivism that had no room for Roman Catholicism or extreme Protestantism. Her ideal church was a state church that practiced uniform doctrine that united the kingdom in common worship. Elizabeth’s “Thirty-nine Articles” was essentially Protestant but worded in such a way that satisfied both Catholic’s and Protestants or, “Via Media”.
With the end of persecutions many Protestants who fled during Mary’s reign returned to England, only to find Elizabeth’s religious reforms did not go far enough. With Bibles such as Tyndale’s, Wyclif’s, and others that were written with the help of the newly acquired Greek documents, a new group of believers would emerge.
This new group influenced also by Calvin and other reformers from the mainland, believed in restoring the pure practices and doctrines of the New Testament thus their name the “Puritans”. These Puritans would eventually become a driving force in English religious life and lead the way to religious freedom and the “New World”.
Men like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Knox would set the groundwork for most denominations that exist today. The English Reformation came about because a King wanted a divorce, the French Reformation came via a class struggle, while the Swiss Reformation happened democratically after a debate won by Zwingli against Johann Faber. The Roman Catholic Church fought back with fire by using the Jesuits to re-educate the masses and the cruel use of the Spanish inquisitions, while the discovery of new lands allowed the Roman Church to enjoy its most rapid expansion ever.
Throughout history man has attempted to know and understand that part of his heart which yearns for God. Some men find every reason they can to explain that feeling in terms of what they can touch, taste, see, or hear. Other men have no desire to explain it because then they must face the reality that the evil things they do are wrong, so they just live for themselves. Then you have those who accept without any question, never waver from his word, and strive to bring others into the family.
Look at the fruit of New England/America: divorce, contraception, abortion, homosexual marriage, continuous protest/re-formations, and general apostasy. The country elected a secular socialist moslem as President twice. The Revolution and re-formation failed.
ping for later
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear OneVike!
Precisely, they re-formed their own religion/theology as a protest against Orthodox Christianity. Their successors follow that pattern and continuously re-form the theology and now contraception and divorce are accepted, and homosexual marriage is in the process of being accepted. Since their young members can reform their denominations, that is changing with the times. For now, the Orthodox, Fundamentalists, and a majority of Evangelicals are standing firm against homosexual marriage. I expect the Evangelicals to give in and reinterpret the Bible to match their members' preferences.
Education, enlightenment and progress advanced almost everywhere the Reformation occurred. Even France partly reformed, allowing it to prosper. It's no coincidence that the backwaters of Europe remained in the clutches of the old unreformed Church.
Several years ago, there was a thread in which some FRoman Catholics actually claimed that their comparatively high rate of clergy sexual abuse was proof(!) that Rome was the true religion. They claimed that sexual abuse was another form of satanic attack, and therefore whatever church had the most cases of sexual abuse was the "true religion" that Satan was interested in bringing down.
I can imagine how that argument goes over with parents who are considering using the parish nursery.
Catholics and atheists voted for Obama both times, Protestants voted against him, both times.
Do yourself a favor, af_vet_1981.
Do NOT take me on over problems of some false churches that claim to be Christian Evangelicals, and then claim all non catholic denominations are just as evil as that one. I will bury you by pointing out the idiotic Catholic Parishes that are supporting same sex marriage, and women as Priests. I will do so by painting the whole Catholic Church as being in support of such evil as some Parishes are.
You want a discussion of theological understandings by using the WORD, OK.
The way I see it, all Christian entities on the planet are guilty of making mistakes because we are all human. Some churches are like the church of Smyrna or Philadelphia, some are like Laodicea or Ephesus.
I prefer not to attack one for being a Catholic, but I also will not sit by and allow anyone to trash my Evangelical faith by spewing lies about me or the church I attend.
I know there are some evil teachers as Paul said there would be, and personally I see many of them in the Catholic Church, as there are many in the Evangelical Churches.
I will defend what we teach where i attend, and yes there are others churches like mine which are right. I will defend them also.
All the accusations of evil that you throw out are nothing compared to the problems the Catholics Church has had through the years that are being ignored and denied while people like you attack Evangelicals.
I do see Evangelicals attacking the Catholic Church while ignoring Evangelical churches with problems. I am not one of them. I debate theological ideas, not buildings. I will take on false teachers regardless of what church they claim they attend or teach for.
As an example of the road I could drag you and your church down, I’ll offer this;
I believe my Church I attend follows the precepts of Christ closer than the Catholic Church, who’s Pope calls for the redistribution of wealth which will only lead to communism. My church and pastor does not.
I have yet to see the Catholic Church deny members like those of the Kennedy clan or Leftists like Pelosi, Chris Matthews, etc. etc. and others communion. Why?
Are there divorced church members in my church? Yes, but at least the church I attend doesn’t just annul a 30 years marriage as if it never happened, while claiming the person is not divorced. We look at divorced brothers and sisters as sinners, just as if they committed any crime against God, unless it is due to the other spouse committing adultery. The Catholic Church makes the one who did not commit adultery the one guilty as they did with Joan Kennedy by annulling her marriage to Ted Kennedy.
At least us Evangelicals will admit there are problems within the protestant faith, you Catholics act as if there are no problems with your church.
Where were you when the Catholic Priests were being accused of molesting boys and forgiven by the Church as they transferred them to another parish instead of calling the police all those years?
In my church we would have driven him to the police station and handed him over to the police. Praying for him all the way to conviction. Not transferring him to another church to molest more children.
Want some evidence of how evil men of the Catholic persuasion can be? How about the 300,000 Spanish babies that were stolen from their parents and sold for adoption over a period of five decades? Yea, the Church is so pure.
Stick to theological debates, do not try and put Catholic leaders as being so pure and innocent compared to the failings of Evangelical leaders. Or I will bury you!
The westernized Satanists mocked whatever was in their sight which was outwardly connected to Christianity, and as this is not an exclusively modern movement, it focused on the western church tradition. Which of course was Catholic.
Never fear, the evil movement has caught up with Protestants, for example the creation of the Satanic Bible.
... so basically the devil is an equal opportunity Christian hater.
How the mis-management of the Roman Catholic Church spurred a COUNTER-Reformation when the abuses that it was doing finally became to much to bear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.